EL PARAÍSO 1.- YUSCARÁN

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I started the doctoral program at Loyola Marymount University the same time I became the superintendent of the Burbank Unified School District. The timing of these two opportunities provided me a good opportunity to examine how superintendents within LA County defined and implemented social justice tenets within their school districts. I also wanted to take the

opportunity to reflect on how I defined social justice and to compare my definition and

experiences to the literature and the interview results in this study. Although there is a significant body of literature on superintendents and on social justice, there is not a comprehensive body of research on superintendents who focus on social justice issues (Maxwell et al., 2013). This qualitative study focused on expanding the research base that is focused on the intersection of social justice practices and the role of the superintendent.

Through a series of eight semistructured interviews, the goal of this study was to analyze how superintendents implemented social justice tenets within their school districts and how each superintendent’s leadership journey influenced him or her along the way. The results of the interviews were transcribed and then coded by hand. After analyzing the coded interviews, patterns were discussed in Chapter 4.

This chapter includes a summary of the patterns from Chapter 4 and compares them to findings from previous studies and other theoretical frameworks. In addition, recommendations for aspiring and current superintendents are discussed. Also considered are opportunities for superintendent preparation programs to improve their programs so as to better prepare

104

superintendents to study and address social justice issues within their school districts. Finally, areas for future research are suggested.

Discussion of Findings

After coding and analyzing the data from the interviews with the eight superintendents, two key findings were identified in Chapter 4: (a) common phrases identified by superintendents when defining social justice, and (b) leadership tenets identified when defining social justice. These findings are discussed and compared to existing research and literature, as are my own personal reflections from when a fellow graduate student interviewed me during this study.

Defining Social Justice

Furman (2012) argued that a clear definition of social justice can assist researchers and practitioners as they improve preparation programs and support systems for social justice- minded leaders. Bogotch (2000) also discussed the challenge of not having a common definition of social justice, especially when leadership programs are trying to focus on the intersection between theory and practice. Shields (2010) also highlighted that, during her study of transformative leadership, she noticed other researchers used different definitions of

transformative and social justice leadership. Shields mentioned that the terms “transformative” and “social justice” leadership were used interchangeably. However, in this study, the eight interviewees never mentioned transformative leadership, they only used the terms social justice and servant leadership.

This study leveraged Weiner’s (2003) definition of transformative leadership: “an exercise of power and authority that begins with questions of justice, democracy, and the dialectic between individual accountability and social responsibility” (p. 89). When analyzing

105

the interview results of this study, I found some similarities and differences to Weiner’s definition, specifically related to power and authority, questioning justice, questioning democracy, and the dialectic between individual accountability and social responsibility. The next section includes a comparison of the key elements of Weiner’s definition to the patterns that emerged in this study’s interview data.

Power and authority. The first element of Weiner’s (2003) definition is power and

authority. As can be seen by the patterns identified in Chapter 4, many of the superintendents understood the power and authority they had to make a difference for their students. The superintendents spoke about the need to lead conversations on the inequities children face in their communities. They also spoke about the challenge of having conversations on power and privilege within their districts, but they recognized the importance of ensuring those

conversations occurred. In addition, many of the superintendents spoke about investing time to create the conditions for thoughtful conversations on power and privilege without placing blame on others. The superintendents wanted to push for those conversations to occur so their

community could begin to address the systemic barriers in their respective communities.

Questioning justice. The next component of Weiner’s (2003) definition of

transformative leadership is questioning justice. Each superintendent in this study had a keen awareness of the injustices their students and families face and the need to address those injustices. When speaking about justice and injustices, equity was a common term used by the superintendents. They stressed the difference between equality and equity and reflected on the need to ensure all students received the appropriate level of supports to help them succeed. For these superintendents, equality meant ensuring every student received the same level of support,

106

but equity meant that every student received the support necessary for them to be successful. For example, one superintendent spoke about the need for additional resources to support the

students and families living in extreme poverty within their school districts. These students did not have access to quality healthcare, did not have enough income to buy appropriate clothing, were living in food deserts, and their parents lacked access to quality housing and jobs. The superintendents talked about the need to study these conditions and work strategically to ensure they provided additional resources and supports to help these students.

Questioning democracy. Although Weiner (2003) used the term democracy in his

definition of transformative leadership, it was not mentioned specifically during the interviews I had with the eight superintendents. However, the superintendents did question the systemic issues and challenges facing their students. They spoke about how this country was founded on democracy, but history also showed that the founding of this country had inherit flaws.

As leaders work to address historic and systemic barriers that inhibit equity for all students, it is important for the superintendents to critically analyze our democratic systems. Democracy is a double-edged sword that can both enable change and ensure that those who have power remain in power. Social justice–minded leaders must continue to question and reflect on how our democratic system enables change and how it continues to reinforce systemic barriers that ensure the oppressed do not gain power.

Dialectic between individual accountability and social responsibility. The final

component of Weiner’s (2003) definition is the dialectic between individual accountability and social responsibility. It was clear that the superintendents interviewed for this study shared a commitment to being personally invested in leading this work and committed to doing whatever

107

it took to help their students. In addition, the notion of shared accountability was mentioned several times by the superintendents. They spoke about the need and desire to constantly engage their community to improve outcomes for all students. They also wanted to ensure their students developed a language for and understanding of social justice so they could better engage in the conditions needed to effect change and to ensure students know what their responsibility is to enact that change.

Expanding the Definition of Transformative or Social Justice Leadership

Although there were several similarities between the definitions the superintendents provided and Weiner’s (2003) definition, many superintendents expressed facing challenges in defining social justice. For many leaders, the term social justice is still an ambiguous term. Based on the results highlighted in Furman’s (2012) study and the results from this study, there still appears to be an opportunity to refine the definition of transformative leadership and social justice so leaders may speak the same language as they lead this work within their communities. Based on the responses from several superintendents in this study, adding Freire’s (1998) lens of social justice to Weiner’s definition could provide a more meaningful definition of social justice leadership. Although Freire’s work mostly focused on teaching, his message of love,

humanization, dialogue, and empowerment of the oppressed could be applied to the role of superintendents. Surprisingly, when asked to define social justice, several of the superintendents spoke of social justice being connected to love. I did not expect this response. Other

superintendents spoke about social justice leaders having a heart for children. By including Freire’s personalized and intimate approach to Weiner’s definition of transformative leadership,

108

it is expected that this will help practitioners to focus on the human element of this work instead of just the systemic elements.

Social Justice–Minded Leadership Tenets

This next section compares the leadership tenets the superintendents identified in this study to other studies that defined leadership tenets. After analyzing the notes from the eight superintendent interviews, four patterns related to the leadership tenets of social justice–minded superintendents were identified: (a) focusing on servant leadership, (b) building a strong team, (c) aligning systems of support; and (d) using data-informed decision-making. Table 5 builds on Table 2, presented in Chapter 2, to showcase the key leadership tenets in the scholarly literature. Based on the patterns, the four tenets of social justice leaders that emerged from the interviews have been added to the Table 5 for comparison with the other leadership tenets.

Table 5

Comparison of Key Leadership Tenets Including Interview Results

Transactional Leadership Transformative Leadership Servant Leadership Social Justice

Leadership Interview Results Northouse (2007), Shields (2010) Shields (2010), Van Oord (2013), Oakes et al. (2006), Young (2013), Weiner (2003) Sergiovanni (2013), Parris and Peachey (2013), and Lowney (2003). Freire (1970, 1998), Theoharis (2007), Furman (2012), Jean-Marie et al., Normore & Brooks (2009), Blackmore (2002) Exchange, negotiation, persuasion, power, Liberation, emancipation, democracy, equity, justice, moral courage, advocacy, activism, participation Being teachable, showing concern for others, demonstrating discipline, and seeking the greatest good for the organization Humanization, praxis, unfinishedness, dialogue, problem- posing pedagogy, critical literacy, trust, love, humanity, hope, responsibility, recognition, and reciprocity Focus on servant leadership, building a strong team, data informed decision making, and aligning systems of support

109

Comparing patterns to transactional leadership. As seen in the interviews, it was

encouraging that none of the superintendents referenced the transactional leadership tenets of exchange, negotiation, or persuasion. Although the superintendents referenced power, they did not discuss it in a transactional leadership manner. Northouse (2007) has defined power in terms of a power relationship between leaders and followers or power over others. Instead of defining power in terms of a transactional leadership style, the superintendents in this study referred to power in reference to transformative leadership or social justice leadership, which tends to address how to shift power and privilege to those who have been oppressed or underserved.

Comparing patterns to transformative, servant, and social justice leadership. The

four patterns that emerged from the interviews with the superintendents referenced several of the key tenets identified in the research on transformative, servant, and social justice leadership. It was interesting to see the blend of key elements across the different leadership styles.

The first pattern identified after analyzing the results of the interviews was a focus on servant leadership. When the superintendents spoke about servant leadership, they referenced a desire to serve their communities and families. They often spoke about doing the work in congruence with the community, rather than leading from afar. These superintendents are focused on serving their team and the community to address issues of injustice. These superintendents are focused on advocating and addressing the inequities within their school systems. It was not expected that the superintendents identify a specific leadership style during the interviews. I expected them to identify specific tenets or characteristics instead of stating servant leadership, especially because when I was asked the question about my leadership style, I

110

focused on the tenets of dialogue, engagement, and working together to address systemic inequities within the community I serve instead of naming a specific leadership style.

The second pattern that emerged from the interviews was a focus on building a strong team. This pattern was not highlighted in any of the other leadership styles specifically. In addition, I did not highlight building a strong team as a key component to leadership for social justice. However, the overarching theme of working with others to advocate for change is very similar to the research related to transformative leadership. My definition of leadership for social justice and the literature on transformative leadership is very focused on working with others to address the systemic barriers that are preventing the oppressed from achieving better outcomes.

The next pattern of being data-informed is very consistent with the tenets identified in transformative leadership. For example, Van Oord’s (2013) 5-step process includes the

following: (a) evaluation of current practice, (b) deliberation on how to improve, (c) drafting of a development plan, (d) dialogue with all stakeholders, and (e) decision-making. Several of the superintendents interviewed highlighted a similar approach to their work by using data to

identify inequities and then tapping that knowledge to engage the community and work with it to address those inequities. I also use a very similar approach to Van Oord’s when I engage with my community to improve our practices. We recently used this approach to develop a master plan to address our community concerns with our special education and mental health offerings and arts instruction. By engaging the entire community in a comprehensive and inclusive approach to developing a plan for change, we created a strong coalition of advocates to ensure those plans were implemented. Several of the superintendents in this study spoke about using a similar approach.

111

Finally, the pattern of aligning systems of support is not a specific tenet highlighted in the research on servant, transformative, or social justice–minded leadership. However, it is a critical component to include in future definitions. If leaders of schools aim to address the inequities within their systems, they need to look beyond the walls of their districts and engage other community partners to secure resources to meet the needs of all students. The superintendents and I focused on building and strengthening partnerships to address the social justice issues identified within our districts. We realized that it was next to impossible for us to address the lack of resources by ourselves. We acknowledged the need to invest the time to build and nurture community partnerships.

Limitations to Consider

Given the research design of this study, there are some limitations to highlight. First, the sample size of only eight superintendents is a limitation. Although the interviews were rich and informative, the sample size only represented 10% of the superintendents in LA County. The sample size of this study could have an impact on the patterns. For example, one unexpected pattern was the focus on servant leadership. It would be interesting to see if that pattern would reoccur if the sample size were increased with other superintendents in future research that builds upon this study.

Second, because this study focused only on superintendents within LA County, it is unclear if the patterns are generalizable outside of Los Angeles. One pattern that may have been impacted by the geographical limitations was the focus on aligning systems of supports. The rich base of city and county resources within Los Angeles may explain why the superintendents focused on this as a key pattern. Expanding this study outside of Los Angeles would help

112

determine if this is a pattern outside of Los Angeles. To mitigate the geographical concern, I selected superintendents who represented a mixture of district demographics: large, small, affluent, low-income, urban, and suburban districts. In addition, I identified a diverse group of superintendents by gender, race, tenure at current district, experience, and primary language.

The next limitation was the process used to select interviewees. I intentionally identified superintendents who made public statements about equity or social justice. In addition, I used a snowball approach by asking interviewees to recommend other superintendents whom they knew focused on social justice issues. This approach was used so current or aspiring superintendents could leverage concrete examples of how social justice–minded superintendents thought about and approached this type of work. However, I did not compare the superintendents selected for this study to other superintendents who may not explicitly focus on social justice. There is an opportunity for future research to compare and contrast the different leadership approaches.

Another limitation to this study was the lack of consistency in defining leadership for social justice. Participants may have been confused by these terms when answering the interview questions. To mitigate this limitation, I used probing questions in my interviews to ensure the interviewee did not have questions about the term being used.

Finally, because I conducted interviews with superintendents, it was difficult to schedule time and conduct multiple interviews with the same individual. This limitation may have

prevented the interviewee from reflecting deeper on the questions being asked. To mitigate this risk, I sent the initial questions I was going to use in the semistructured interview to each participant. However, it was difficult to tell if all participants had the opportunity to read the questions in advance of the interview.

113

Theoretical Implications

The results from this study have implications at the theoretical and practical levels. At the theoretical level, the patterns from the current study can be examined through the lens of

Furman’s (2012) framework and can also be compared to Skrla et al.’s (2009) EOCA framework. On the practical level, there are implications for superintendent preparation programs and current superintendents.

Comparing Patterns to Furman’s Theoretical Framework

Furman (2012) highlighted a social justice framework that included five dimensions for social justice leadership—(a) personal, (b) interpersonal, (c) communal, (d) systemic, and (e) ecological. She then explored the importance of praxis, or reflection and action, within each dimension. When discussing the art of reflection and action, she referenced Freire’s (2002) definition of praxis in Pedagogy of the Oppressed:

It is only when the oppressed find the oppressor out and become involved in the organized struggle for their liberation that they begin to believe in themselves. This discovery cannot be purely intellectual but must involve action; nor can it be limited to mere activism, but must include serious reflection; only then will it be a praxis. (p. 65) Although the interviewees in this study did not specifically mention Furman’s (2012)

framework, it was clear from their responses that each superintendent participated in a level of reflection across similar dimensions. The superintendents discussed how they made space for reflection in their personal routines, especially when they were working to remove systemic barriers that prohibited students from being successful within their districts. In Table 6, Furman’s framework is compared to the key patterns from this study: (a) focusing on servant leadership, (b) building a team, (c) aligning systems of support, and (d) data-informed decision-making.

114 Table 6

Comparison of Furman’s Framework to Interview Patterns

Furman’s Dimensions Interview Patterns

Personal Servant leadership, data informed decision making

Interpersonal Servant leadership, building a team, data informed decision making Communal Servant leadership, data informed decision making

Systemic Aligning systems of support, data informed decision making Ecological Aligning systems of support, data informed decision making

Note. Adapted from Educational Administration Quarterly by Furman, 2012, pp. 205–210.

As seen in Table 6, many of the patterns can be mapped from the personal to the ecological level. Even though Furman’s framework was developed to assist school leaders who want to focus on social justice issues, the patterns from this study highlight the opportunity for superintendents to